BANCROFT 

LIBRARY 

•> 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS. 


SPEECH 


OF 


SON,  T,  T,  FLAGLER,  OF  NEW  YORK, 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  16,  1854. 


The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union — 

Mr.  FLAGLERsaid: 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  pleased  the  coordinate 
branch  of  our  Government  to  send  for  concurrence 
here  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.     That  bill  contains  a 
provision   which  has  arrested  the  attention  and 
awakened  the  solicitude  of  the  American  people 
to  an  extent  unparalleled.    The  voice  of  my  im 
mediate  constituents  comes  to  me  in  tones  deep  and 
unbroken,  like  that  of  the  mighty  cataract  on  our 
border,  solemnly  and  earnestly  protesting  against 
impairing  the  Missouri  compromise,  as  this  bill 
contemplates,  and  enjoining  me  to  oppose  it  in 
their  name  and  behalf  by  all  the  means  within  my 
power.     I  am  happy  to  say,  sir,  that  my  own 
views  and  feeling  are  in  perfect  unison  with  those 
of  the  constituency  I  represent;  and  I  am  impelled 
to  break  the  silence  which  I  have  observed  since 
my  advent  upon  this  floor,  and  which  1  would,  of 
choice,  still  preserve,  because  I  am  persuaded  that 
in  the  judgment  of  many  of  them,  1  shall  not  have 
exhausted  those  means,  unless  I  oppose  this  bill  in 
its  present  shape  both  by  speech  and  vote.     Thus 
prompted,  nay,  thus  constrained,  I  launch    my 
barkiupon  the  stream  of  discussion,  from  whose 
•depth's  every  pearl  has  been  sought  for  and  found, 
and  from  \ynosue  shores  every  flower  and  thing  of 
beauty  has-'been  gathered.     True  and  pertinent 
things— 4f  not  new  things — I  shall  aim  to  utter.  On 
this  greattheme,  at  this  momentous  crisis, lineupon 
line  and  precept  upon  precept  may  well  be  excused . 
Let  none  wonder  or  complain  that  this  far-reach 
ing  question  we  are  considering  brings  agitation 
and  prolonged  discussion.     If  there  was  no  agita 
tion,  we  might  be  well  assured  the  spirit  of  liberty 
had  departed  from  us — if  there  was  no  voice  of 
man  against  this  bill,  the  stones  in  our  streets 
would  cry  out. 

It  is  no  new  thing,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  Na 
tional  Government  is  invoked  to  call  into  being 
these  temporary  organizations,  these  States  in  em 
bryo.  Even  before  the  formation  of  our  present 
Constitution,  it  was  found  necessary,  under  the 


Articles  of  Confederation  which  it  superseded,  to 
enact,  by  ordinance,  a  government  for  the  "  Terri 
tory  of  the  United  States  northwest  of  the  river 
Ohio. "  This  celebrated  ordinance,  the  pioneer  of 
kindred  enactments,  by  virtue  of  which  our  family 
of  States  has  increased  from  thirteen  to  thirty-one, 
was  formally  and  distinctly  sanctioned  by  an  act 
of  the  first  Congress  which  assembled  after  the 
adoption  of  that  Constitution.  In  this  ordinance 
are  two  prominent  and  well  defined  character 
istics.  The  one  is  the  assertion  and  exercise  of 
the  right  of  supremacy  in  the  National  Legisla 
ture  over  the  temporary  government  it  creates, 
and  the  other  is  the  prohibition  of  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude  in  said  Territory,  except  for 
crime. 

Considering,  sir,  that  the  ordinance  embracing 
these  distinctive  features  was  passed  immedi 
ately  before,  and  sanctioned  immediately  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
considering  that  those  who  were  concerned  in 
ingrafting  those  provisions  into  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  were  the  same  master  minds  who  modeled 
the  Constitution  itself;  and  considering  the  unan 
imity  with  which  the  sovereignty  of  Congress  and 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  was  incorporated  into 
the  first  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  territorial 
government,  there  seems  to  be  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that,  unless,  indeed ,  as  has  been  already 
said,  the  Constitution  itself  is  unconstitutional, 
that  ordinance  is  not  only  the  pioneer,  but  deserves 
to  be  the  model  of  all  subsequent  organizations  of 
territorial  governments  by  Congress,  so  far  as 
those  two  features  are  concerned.  That  ordinance 
is  a  platform  hewn  out  of  the  tree  of  liberty,  and 
upheld  by  the  pillars  of  the  Constitution. 

The  bill  before  us  is  objectidhable,  since  it  de 
parts  from  those  constitutional ,  proper,  and  even 
necessary,  features  of  our  earliest  territorial  organ 
ization.  We  find  it  not  only  relaxes  the  hold 
which,  of  right,  as  the  trustee  for  the  States,  Con 
gress  should  exercise  over  whatever  concerns  the 
Territory  in  which  it  erects  the  frame-work  of  gov 
ernment,  but  it  also  casts  off  the  palpable  duty  of 
Congress  in  making  "needful  rules  and  regula- 


tions  for  the  Territories,"  to  secure  for  them  "  the 
blessings  of  liberty."  It  is  the  organic  law — the 
Constitution — which  imposes  this  duty  upon  Con 
gress;  but  we  search  in  vain  for  any  such  provision 
in  the  bill.  The  wise  and  liberty-loving  statesmen 
of  those  other — shall  I  say  better — days  stamped 
the  impress  of  freedom  upon  our  national  domain. 
This  bill  leaves  to  the  determination  of  we  know 
not  whom,  the  settlement  of  a  question  we  know 
not  how,  which. the  National  Legislature  is  con 
stitutionally  and  morally  bound  to  settle,  and  that 
in  favor  of  freedom. 

The  bill  is  objectionable  in  the  next  place,  sir, 
because  the  rightful  authority  of  Congress  having 
been  exercised  to  shut  out  forever  human  slavery 
from  these  Territories,  it  is  proposed  in  this  bill 
wantonly  and  wickedly  to  repeal  that  righteous 
prohibition.  It  is  this  which  imparts  to  the  ob 
jection  colossal  proportions;  it  is  this  which  rears 
it  to  more  than  mountain  height.  How  marked 
and  sad  the  contrast  between  the  principles  and 
practice  of  the  fathers  of  our  Republic,  and  that  of 
some  of  their  descendants  at  the  present  day. 
The  one  erected  barriers  against  slavery;  the  other 
finds  one  erected,  and  ruthlessly  proposes  to  pull 
it  down.  The  one  held  free  labor  identified  with 
the  welfare  and  glory  of  the  land  they  loved;  the 
other  holds  free  and  slave  labor  as  equal,  and  en 
titled  equally  to  be  fostered  by  Congress  in  our  | 
national  domain. 

A  darker  shade,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  imparted  to  j 
the  proposed   repeal  of   the  prohibition   against ; 
slavery  in  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kanzas, ' 
when    we  contemplate   the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  imposed.     Slavery,  which  the  fathers  \ 
of  our  Republic  regarded  as  an  evil  to  be  endured 
until,  under  the  operation  of  the  free  institutions  ; 
they  established,  Jt  should  at  an  early  period  fade  ! 
away,  became  in  process  of  time  invested  with  in-  j 
creased  vigor  and  strength.     It  looked  upon  and  ' 
coveted  for  its  own  a  liberal  portion  of  our  newly 
acquired   national   territory.     It  had  insidiously  i 
gained  a  foothold  in  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  and  | 
when  in  1820,  a  constitution  was  formed  there  | 
initiatory  to  her  admission  as  one  of  the  States  of  i 
this  Union,  the  question,  grave  and  solemn,  came  j 
up  in  Congress,  shall  the  number  of  slave  States  j 
be   increased   by   carving  them  out  of  our  na-  j 
tional  domain.     If  there  be  any  truth  in  history —  ; 
if  we  may  trust  the  recollections  of  a  multitude  of 
the  living,  it  was  a  portentous  epoch.    It  involved 
the  recognition  as  right  what  the  moral  sense  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States  affirmed  to  be  wrong. 
It  was  not  only  a  fierce,  but  protracted  struggle. 
Good  men — statesmen — well  nigh  despaired  of  the 
Republic.     It  was  settled  at  last — not  as  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  desired,  not  as  they  expected 
— but  as  those  who  were  the  champions  of  sla 
very  proposed  and  pressed  upon  Congress,  and 
which,  when  settled,  they  heralded  as  a  triumph, 
and  substantial  advantage  for  that  interest.     By 
this  settlement — this  compact — this  covenant — as 
it  has  been  variously  termed,  slavery  was  allowed 
to  hold  its  ground  in  Missouri,  provided  it  was 
forever  shut  out  of  the  balance  of  the  Louisiana 
purchase  north  of  36°  30'.     Slavery  took  its  por 
tion  under  theagreement,  while  patient  freedom  was 
to  wait  until — in  the  unknown,  far-off  future — the 
wilderness,  which  was  its  portion,  should  become 
the  abode  of  civilized  man.    One  third  of  a  century 
has  passed  away  since  that  memorable  period 


of  1820.  The  chivalrous  actors  in  the  conflict  are 
no  more.  "  Now  there  arose  up  a  new  king  in 
Egypt  which  knew  not  Joseph."  As  though  there 
was  not  ample  present  causes  for  estrangement 
between  different  sections  of  our  country,  it  has 
suited  the  purposes  of  the  god-fathers  of  this  bill 
to  rake  up  the  ashes  of  past  disagreements,  to  find 
in  their  too  successful  search  an  ember  with  which 
to  enkindle  a  fierce  and  consuming  flame.  It  is  the 
practice  of  our  Government  to  reward  inventive 

Fenius  by  patent.  These  incentives  are  awarded, 
believe,  on  two  conditions:  first,  there  must  in 
fact  be  a  discovery;  and  secondly,  it  must  be  sus 
ceptible  of  some  useful  purpose.  So  long  as  these 
inexorable  rules  are  applied,  I  am  well  persuaded 
that  the  inventor  of  the  discovery,  that  the  Mis 
souri  compromise  of  1820  was  inconsistent  with 
the  legislation  of  1850,  and  must,  therefore,  be 
declared  "  inoperative  and  void,"  will  never  get  a 
patent.  We  are  not  advised  that  one  was  given 
to  him,  in  ancient  days,  who  invented  the  method 
of  making  his  name  immortal  by  applying  the  in 
cendiary  torch  to  the  world  renowned  library  at 
Alexandria,  and  dooming  its  rich  treasures  to  de 
struction.  I  would  there  had  been,  for  it  might 
have  saved  us  from  the  miserable  and  mischievous 
imitators  of  his  example  at  the  present  day. 

The  objections  to  this  bill  might  safely  be 
rested  here.  The  three  reasons  already  adduced 
are,  or  should  be,  conclusive  against  its  passage 
in  its  present  shape,  in  the  judgment  of  all  fair- 
minded  statesmen  But  there  are  others,  inde 
pendent  of  these,  which  impel  us  to  the  same  con 
clusion.  Look  at  the  section  which  is  the  subject 
of  so  much  controversy,  and  which,  to  be  appre 
ciated,  must  be  seen  in  its  full  proportions,  viz: 

"  That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force 
and  effect  within  the  said  Territory  of  Nebraska  as  else 
where  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section 
of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  approved  March  6, 1820;  which,  being  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  as  recognized  by  the 
legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  meas 
ures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void,  it  being  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery 
into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but 
to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu 
late  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  :  Provided, 
That  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to 
revive  or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may 
have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  6th  of  March,  1820,  either 
protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or  abolishing  slavery." 

Now,  the  object  of  thisVemarkable  fourteenth 
section,  of  which  the  above  is  the  concluding  and 
controverted  portion,  is  to  repeal  the  prohibition 
against  slavery  as  established  by  the  Missouri 
compromise,  and  yet  it  is  a  surprising,  not  to  say 
suspicious,  circumstance  that  the  word  repeal  does 
not  appear !  It  could  have  been  done  in  a  brief 
sentence,  and  yet  whatan  avalanche  of  words.  It 
was  easy  to  make  its  object  plain,  if  it  simply 
contemplated  that  repeal,  and  yet  it  is  confessedly 
so  obscure  that  a  commentary  is  added,  and  to 
crown  the  climax,  this  addition  to  the  text  is  sub 
jected  to  an  explanatory  proviso  !  It  has  been  well 
said  that  the  objection  against  the  bill  on  account 
of  its  obscurities  is  ample  cause  for  its  rejection. 
If  passed,  it  must  inevitably  provoke  endless 
controversy  and  litigation.  It  might  well  be  en 
titled  an  act  to  increase  the  business  in  our  courts, 
and  thereby  encourage  the  increase  of  that  already 


3 


numerous  profession,  the  law.  .If  these  state 
ments  are,  in  the  judgment  of  any,  overstrained, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  both  in  and  out  of  Con 
gress,  it  is  advocated  for  reasons  diametrically 
opposite.  It  is  far  from  being  settled  what  is  the 
principle  it  contains.  But  however  much  d.ispute 
there  may  be  on  other  points,  however  much 
or  little  it  may  have  of  other  elements,  it  is  obvi 
ous  that  the  section  we  are  considering  has  the 
geometrical  principle. 

The  section  is — or  is  claimed  to  be — a  triangle. 
It  is  elaborately  and  skillfully  constructed  with 
three  sides;  and,  as  seen  from  those  respective 
points  of  observation,  so  does  it  present  three 
different  aspects,  and  is  read  in  as  many  differ 
ent  ways.  Some,  in  looking,  fall  desperately  in 
love  with  it,  because  it  grants  to  slavery  what  its 
admirers  and  propagandists  choose  to  term  an 
equality  of  rights.  Others,  looking  upon  another 
side,  declare  that  they  approve  it  because  it  pro 
claims  non-intervention  by  Congress  in  the  affairs 
of  these  Territories.  Still  another  class — and  it 
embraces  well  nigh  all  the  friends  this  bill  has,  in 
its  present  shape,  in  the  non-slaveholding  States —  i 
gaze  wistfully  at  its  misty  provisions,  and,  re- 1 
clining  in  the  pleasant  and.  refreshing  shade  of! 
some  desirable  office  of  the  National  Government, ! 
persuade  themselves  they  see  in  it  the  cardinal 
doctrine  of  self-government,  and  therefore  cannot ' 
withhold  from  it  their  disinterested  support,  albeit 
they  are  profoundly  grieved  that  the  anti-slavery  j 
proviso  of  1820  is  necessarily  overthrown!  Can  • 
those  contradictory  renderings  be  all  of  them  legiti 
mate  and  true?  Are  not  some  either  deceivers  or 
deceived?  A  section  so  equivocal  and  three-sided 
deserves  a  patient  and  scrutinizing  examination. 
Let  us  recur  to  its  language.  It  leaves  the  people 
of  these  Territories  "  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  The  provision  has  an  innocent 
and  amiable  look,  well  calculated  to  win  the  con 
fidence  of  the  unwary,  but  who  need  be  told  that, 
under  its  phraseology,  lies  an  important  and  con 
troverted  question.  The  question  is,  what  rights 
"under  the  Constitution"  do  the  people  within 
territorial  limits  have  over  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  the  absence  of  any  law,  as  this  bill  proposes  to 
leave  it? 

In  one  quarter  of  this  land — and  it  becomes  me 
as  a  representative  of  a  free  constituency  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  fact — in  one  section  of  the  coun 
try,  and  that  section  most  concerned  for  the 
passage  of  the  bill  with  this  provision — it  is  held 
that  those  people  have  no  pow%r  whatever  to  act 
against  slavery;  they  cannot,  however  desirous  a 
majority  might  be,  shut  it  out  of  the  Territory. 
Volumes  might  be  filled  with  proof  in  support  of 
this  doctrine  as  held  by  southern  statesmen.  It 
runs  through  their  speeches  in  support  of -this 
bill,  and  explains  full  well  their  desire  that  it 
should  pass.  Take,  for  example,  an  extract  from 
the  reeent  speech*  of  the  able  Senator  from  Missis 
sippi,  [Mr.  BROWN..]  Speaking  of  this  alleged 
equality,  he  said: 

"The  conclusions,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  which  my  own 
mind  has  arrived  on  the  several  points  involved  are  briefly 
these:  That  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  may  go  to 
the  Territories  and  take  with  him  his  property,  be  it  slaves 
or  any  other  description  of  property;  that  neither  the 
United  States  Congress  nor  Territorial  Legislature  has  any 
power  or  authority  to  exclude  him ;  and  that  the  power  of 


legislation,  by  whomsoever  exercised  in  the  Territories, 
whether  by  Congress  or  the  Territorial  Legislature,  must  be 
exerted  for  the  equal  benefit  of  all — for  the  southern  slave 
holder  no  less  than  for  the  northern  dealer  in  dry  goods." 

The  distingnished  Senator  enforces  this  view  of 
the  subject,  by  quoting  the  language  of  Jhe  late 
Senator  Calhoun  and  others,  and  then  adds: 

"To  fortify  my  own  position,  I  might  multiply  authori 
ties  like  these  almost  indefinitely.  It  may  be  sufficient  to 
say  that,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  strict  constructionist  in  the 
South  has  ever  yielded  the  point  that  the  inhabitants  of  a 
Territory  could  exclude  slavery." 

When  the  above  quoted  section  was  under  con 
sideration  before  the  Senate,  the  following  amend 
ment  was  proposed  to  be  added  at  its  close: 

"  Under  which  the  people  of  the  Territory,  through  their 
appropriate  representatives,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  prohibit 
the  existence  of  slavery  therein." 

The  vote  upon  it  was  as  follows: 

"YEAS— Messrs.  Chase,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Fessen- 
den,  Fish,  Foot,  Hamlin,  Seward,  Smith,  Sumner,  and 
Wade— 10. 

"  NAYS — Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Ben- 
jamin,  Brodhead,  Brown,  Butler,  Clay,  Clayton,  Dawson, 
Dixon,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Gwin, 
Houston,  Hunter,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Jones  of  Ten 
nessee,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Peltit,  Pratt,  Rusk,  Sebas 
tian,  Shields,  SlidelL,  Stuart,  TOU&I,  Walker,  Weller,  and 
Williams— 36." 

This  rejection,  by  the  vote  of  every  Senator 
friendly  to  the  bill,  in  one  unbroken  phalanx,  is 
conclusive  of  the  motives  of  those  who  urge  its 
passage,  and  of  the  ulterior  and  baneful  purposes 
it  is  designed  to  visit  upori  the  people  of  these 
Territories.  It  is  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  act  that  those  people  shall  not  prohibit  the 
slaveholder  from  going  into  with,  and  holdingthere, 
under  their  view  of  the  Constitution,  his  human 
chattels.  It  is  this  doctrine  of  equality  of  rights, 
intended  to  be  secured  to  the  slaveholder  by  the 
honeyed  phraseology  of  this  bill,  which  draws  to 
this  measure  almost  the  entire  support  of  the 
South. 

But  is  this  doctrine  of  the  strict  constructionist 
correct?  It  has  frequently  been  met,  and  its  un- 
soundness  made  manifest,  but  never  more  conclu 
sively  and  triumphantly  than  by  one  STEPHEN 
A.  DOUGLAS,  a  Senator  in  Congress  from  Illinois, 
in  1850.  He  was  manfully  battling  against  this 
specious  doctrine  when,  in  his  place  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate,  he  said: 

"  But  you  say  that  we  propose  to  prohibit  by  law  your 
emigrating  to  the  Territories  with  your  property.  We  pro 
pose  no  such  thing.  We  recognize  your  right,  in  common 
with  our  own,  to  emigrate  to  the  Territories  with  your  prop 
erty,  and  there  hold  and  enjoy  it  in  subordination  to  the 
laws  you  may  find  in  force  in  the  country.  Those  laws,  in 
some  respects,  differ  from  our  own,  as  the  laws  of  the  va 
rious  States  of  this  Union  vary,  on  some  points,  from  the 
laws  of  each  other.  Some  species  of  property  are  excluded 
by  law  in  most  of  the  States,  as  well  as  Territories,  as 
being  unwise,  immoral,  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of 
sound  public  policy.  For  instance,  the  banker  is  prohibited 
from  emigrating  to  Minnesota,  Oregon, or  California,  with 
his  bank.  The  bank  may  be  property  by  the  laws  of  New 
York,  but  ceases  to  be  so  when  tnken  into  a  State  or  Ter 
ritory  where  banking  is  prohibited  by  the  local  law.  So, 
ardent  spirits,  whisky,  brandy,  all  the  intoxicating  drink?, 
are  recognized  and  protected  as  property  in  most  of  the 
States,  if  not  all  of  them  ;  but  no  citizen,  whether  from  the 
North  or  South,  can  take  this  species  of  property  vvith  him, 
and  hold,  sell,  or  use  it  at  his  pleasure  in  all  the  Territories, 
because  it  is  prohibited  by  the  local  law — in  Oregon  by  the 
statutes  of  the  Territory,  and  in  the  Indian  country  by  the 
acts  of  Congress.  Nor  can  a  man  go  there  and  take  and 
hold  his  slave,  for  the  same  reason.  These  laws,  and  many 
others  involving  similar  principles,  are  directed  against  no 
section,  and  impair  the  rights  of  no  State  in  the  Union. 


*  They  are  laws  against  the  introduction,  sale,  and  use  of 
specific  kinds  of  property,  whether  brought  from  the  North 
or  the  South,  or  from  foreign  countries." 

Men   change,   but  truth   is  unchanging;    and 
since,  by  the  testimony  of  him  who   leads  the 
van   of.  slavery  propagandists,   their   theory   of 
equality  of  rights  is  false,  though  it  be  ever  so 
specious,  every  lover  of  his  kind  may  well  excuse 
himself  from  supporting  a  measufe  whose  true 
intent  and  meaning  is  most  palpably  to  infuse  the 
curse  of  slavery  into  these  Territories  for  which 
this  bill  provides  a  government.     They  are  per 
fectly  free,  except  that  they  are  under  an  over 
whelming  constraint.     They  have  a  choice,  too, 
provided  they  choose  to  admit  and  foster  slavery. 
Sovereigns  they  are  also,  if  they  will  but  inaugu 
rate  the  chain  and  the  lash.     Ay!  they  are  left 
by  this  bill  perfectly  free  to  bow  down  and  wor 
ship  the  dragon  of  American  slavery.    From  such 
freedom  may  the  people  of  those  Territories  be 
delivered !    Pass  this  bill,  send  into  the  Territories 
judges  whose  appointment  has  to  pass  the  ordeal 
of  that  same  Senate — a  majority  of  whose  mem 
bers  have  recorded  themselves  in  favor  of  the  doc- ! 
trine  of  equality  of  rights,  as  held  by  the  South —  j 
and  they  will  go  there  to  reflect  judicially  the  j 
views  of  those  to  whom  they  owe  their  position.  I 
They  will  give  to  this  doctrine  of  the  strict  con- ! 
structionist  of  the  South,  that  the  inhabitants  of] 
the  Territory  cannot  exclude  slavery,  the  con 
trolling  influence   of  judicial  construction.     For 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories  there  will  be  no 
escape  from  it — they  will  have  no  power  to  erect 
a  single  embankment,  although  slavery  pours  in 
upon  them  like  a  flood.    They  are  tied,  hand  and 
foot,  and  then  told,  in  bitter  mockery,  they  are  i 
perfectly  free ! 

But  while  the  slavery  propagandist  may  look 
upon  this  section,  and  admire  it  because  it  bears 
in  legible  characters  his  favorite  doctrine,  it  de-  ! 
serves  to  be  considered  what  grounds  there  are  j 
for  the  two  other  constructions  deduced  from  it  j 
— non-intervention  by  Congress,  and  self  govern 
ment  by  the  people  of  the  Territories.  In  listen 
ing  to  the  speeches  upon  this  floor  in  behalf  of  this 
bill,  it  would  hardly  be  suspected  that  the  bill  con 
tained  thirty-seven  sections;  that  it  extended  to 
thirty-seven  printed  pages,  and  that,  from  begin 
ning  to  the  end,  there  is  intervention  with  the 
affairs  of  those  people.  It  does  not  suffer  them  to 
set  up  a  government,  but  erects  one  for  them. 
The  act  prescribes  the  boundaries  of  the  Terri 
tories,  requires  the  inhabitants  to  recognize  the 
rights  of  the  Indians  there  under  treaties  with  the 
United  States;  vests  the  executive  power  in  a  Gov 
ernor  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate,  and 
over  whose  appointment  to,  or  continuance  in 
office,  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories  have  no 
control;  gives  him  the  veto  power,  which  can  only 
be  overruled  by  a  two-third  vote  of  the  Territorial 
Legislature;  designates  the  number  of  members  in 
the  Territorial  Legislature;  prescribes  their  quali 
fications  and -terms  of  service;  limits  the  duration 
of  their  sessions,  and  the  subjects  of  their  legisla 
tion.  This  act,  also,  kindly  extends  a  judicial 
system  over  these  people — sends  them,  under  ap 
pointment  by  the  President  and  Senate,  judges, 
marshals,  and  district  attorneys  to  execute  it; 
and  enacts  that  all  laws  of  the  United  States,  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall. have  the  same  force  and 
effect  as  elsewhere  in  the  United  States. 


In  a  word,  this  act,  aside  from  the  changes  made 
necessary  by  locality,  is  almost  literally  a  copy 
j  of  former  bills  for  organizing  territorial  govern- 
I  ments.     The  most  material  difference  is  the  giving 
j  to  the  Governor  a  qualified ,  instead  of  an  absolute, 
I  veto;  but  since  the  same  authority  which  provides 
!  these  people  a  Governor  grants  them  the  money  to 
i  carry  on  their  government,  erect  public  buildings, 
|  construct  roads,  &c.,  the  difference  between  an 
i  absolute  and  qualified  veto  is,  practically,  of  no 
I  account.      And   yet  it  is  gravely  held  that   the 
|  ambiguous  provisions  of  the  fourteenth  section 
relieve*  the  inhabitants  of  these  Territories  from 
i  the  express  and  plain  requirements  of  other  por 
tions  of  the  bill.     It  is  quite  certain  that  those  who 
place  their  advocacy  for  this  measure  on  the  ground 
that  it  frees  these  inhabitants  from  congressional 
intervention,  and  leaves  them  in  the  enjoyment  of 
self-government,  must  indeed  have  eye-sight  quick 
ened  by  the  telescopic  power  of  Government  pat 
ronage,  and  are  thus  able 

"  To  see  what  is  not  to  be  seen." 
And  yet  this  bill,  heavy  laden  with  these  obnox 
ious  and  reprehensible  features,  has  received  the 
sanction  of  the  Senate,  is  adopted  by  the  national 
Administration  as  a  test  of  party  fealty,  and 
has  its  advocates  upon  this  floor,  who,  with  a 
zeal  and  eloquence  worthy  of  a  better  cause,  press 
it  upon  the  attention  of  this  House  and  the  coun 
try.  Various  pleas  are  adduced  for  its  passage, 
upon  the  sufficiency  of  which  I  desire  to  ".give 
my  opinion." 

The  most  prominent  of  these,  perhaps,  is  that 
which  assails  the  validity  and  binding  force  of  the 
prohibitory   line  of  36°  30'.     The  advocates  of 
this  bill  have  taken  upon  themselves  the  herculean 
labor  of  endeavoring   to   show  that  our  whole 
nation  has  rested  under  a  great  historical  mistake 
for  thirty-four  years.     They  are  bold  enough  and 
desperate  enough  to  affirm  that  the  Missouri  com 
promise,  instead  of  being,  as  all  mankind  sup 
posed,  nay,  as  all  mankind  positively  knew,  the 
concession  on  the  one  part  to  admit  Missouri  as  a 
;  slave  State,  and  the  agreement  on  the  other  to  the 
perpetual  exclusion  of  it  from  what  remained  of 
the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of  36°  30'  as  the 
j  equivalent  for  that  concession,  was  only  a  strife 
|  in  regard  to  free  negroes  in  that  State,  occurring, 
I  not  in  1820,  but  in   1821.     I  am  persuaded,  Mr- 
Chairman,  these  gentlemen  do  not  as  yet  fully 
I  appreciate  the  weight  they  have  placed  upon  their 
!  own  shoulders,  or  the  magnitude  of  the  under 
taking  to  which  they  have  addressed  themselves, 
It  is  an  effort  as  unsatisfactory  and  unending  as 
I  the  laborious  task   of  Sisyphus,  whose  punish 
ment  it  was  continually  to  press  the  huge  stone 
!  up    hill !     As  well   might  they    argue  loud  and 
long  to -prove  that  this  session  of  Congress  had 
no   beginning,  or,  what   would    net   be  entirely 
destitute   of  plausibility,  that   it   is   destined   to 
|  have  no  end.     They  do  not,  they  cannot,  obscure 
j  the  light  which  has  brightly  and  steadily  shone 
on  that  great  and  memorable  transaction  of  1820. 
"This  thing  was  not  done  in  a  corner."     It  is 
established   by  the  testimony  of  those   who  par 
ticipated,  in  or  were  contemporaneous   with    the 
mighty  struggle,  and  whose  evidence  is  unim- 
peached  and  unimpeachable.     Hear  one  of  those 
witnesses — an  actor  in  those  scenes  of  1820,  and 
an   adherent  of  the  slavery   interest,  which,  he 
counsels  his  friend,  has  been  a  great  gainer  by  the 


very  settlement  of  the  question  which  he  opposed. 
I  offer  no  apology  for  reproducing  this  oft-quoted 
letter.     On  the  contrary,  I  humbly  submit  that, 
so  long  as  this  bill  is  pending  to  repeal  the  Mis 
souri  compromise,  this  letter  of  Charles  Pinckney 
should  as  much  be  read  every  day  as  the  Journals 
of  our  proceedings.     It  would  be  a  most  appropri 
ate  conclusion  and  finishing  stroke  to  the  speeches 
delivered  here  in  favor  of  that  repeal.  Suppose  the 
question  before  us  involved  the  lives  of  as  many  i 
men  as  could  stand  upon  the  soil  of  Nebraska  and  i 
Kansas;  suppose  that,  instead  of  being  settled  in  a  ! 
legislative  body,  it  was  to  be  adjudicated  by  a  court ; 
of  justice,  and  under  the  well-established  rules  of  | 
evidence;  suppose,  also,  that  the  question  of  their  ' 
guilt  hinged  upon  the  credibility  of  Pinckney 's  tes 
timony  in  reference  to  the  facts  stated  in  his  letter  ' 
— could  that  proof  be  shaken  by  the  contradictory  j 
declaration  of  gentlemen  on  this  floor?    Would  j 
not  the  court  and  jury  determine  that  the  testi 
mony  of  one  witness  who  waspresentand  simply  i 
told  what  he  saw  and  heard  could  not  be  affected 
by  the  counter  assertions  of  others  who  were,  it 
may  be,  at  the  time  unborn,  or  who,  at  best,  de 
rived  their  knowledge  second-hand  and  from  hear 
say  ?    Sir,  the  proof  of  this  Missouri  compromise, j 
as  an  event  occurring  in  1820,  and  as  adjusting  a  i 
question  of  slavery,  is  settled,  if  there  were  not  a 
jot  or  tittle  of  other  proof,  by  this  letter  of  Charles 
rinckney.     It  is  strong  enough  and  conclusive 
enough  to  hang  a  multitude  of  men.     Let  us  see 
what  this  letter  says: 

CONGRESS  HA.LL,  March  2,  1820.  ) 
3  o'clock  at  night.      $ 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  hasten  to  inform  you  that  this  moment  we 
have  carried  the  question  to  admit  Missouri,  and  all  Louis 
iana  to  the  southward  of  36°  30',  free  of  the  restriction  of 
slavery,  and  give  the  South,  in  a  short  time,  an  addition  of 
tix,  and  perhaps  eight,  members  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  considered  here  by  the  slaveholding  States  as 
a  great  triumph.  The  votes  were  close,  ninety  to  eighty- 
six — [the  vote  was  so  first  declared] — produced  by  the  se-  ' 
ceding  and  absence  of  a  few  moderate  men  from  the  North. 
To  the  north  of  36°  30'  there  is  to  be,  by  the  present  law, 
restriction,  which  you  will  see  by  the  votes  I  voted  against,  i 
But  it  is  at  present  of  HO  moment :  It  is  a  vast  tract,  unin 
habited,  only  by  savages  arid  wild  beasts,  in  which  not  a 
foot  of  the  Indian  claim  to  the  soil  is  extinguished,  and  in 
which,  according  to  the  ideas  prevalent,  no  land  office  will 
be  opened  for  a  great  length  of  time. 

With  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  PITVCKNEY. 

Mark  the  date,  it  is  1820;  and  a  question  of  slavery  j 
allowed  in  one  locality  and  prohibited  in  another, 
that  is  settled,  settled  so  satisfactorily  that  this  son 
of  South  Carolina  takes  an  early  hour  of  the  morn 
ing  to  break  the  glad  tidings  to  his  friend.     When  } 
any  question  relative  to  free  negroes  comes  up  in  | 
Congress,  it  will  be  a  good  time,  an  excellent  time, 
to  consider  what  bearing  the  legislation  of  1821, 
has  on  that  question.     But  meanwhile  the  unful 
filled  condition  of  the  compromise,  the  agreement, 
the  covenant  of  1820,  has  become  a  practical  ques 
tion.  What  was  of  no  moment,  as  Mr.  Pinckney 
truly  said ,  in  1820,  is  of  incalculable  moment  now.  ; 
The  South,  as  proven,  had  her  triumph  in  1820,  | 
the  North  asks,  nay,  demands,  not  a  triumph,! 
but  simply  even-handed  justice  to-day.   McLane, ' 
and  Lowndes,  and  Mercer,  and  their  illustrious; 
compeers  of  the  South,  took  upon  themselves,  ! 
their  constituencies  and  descendants,  obligations  ]' 
which,  it  is  safe  to  say,  their  successors  in  these 
Halts  cannot  escape  or  put  away,  without  tarnish- 
ing  the  good  name  of  those  patriotic  and  honored  [j 


sons  of  the  South.  I  rejoice  that  there  is  a  noble 
few  who  do  stand  by  the  ancient  covenant.  Happy 
would  it  be  if  there  were  more  of  the  Representa 
tives  of  the  South  who  would  attest  their  regard 
for  the  memory  of  the  patriotic  dead,  by  a  scrupu 
lous  adherence  to  the  engagements  they  made  in  a 
time  of  great  national  peril. 

The  next  pretense  insisted  upon,  as  though  it 
were  a  reason  for  the  perpetration  of  this  out 
rage,  is,  that  the  North  subsequently  refused  to 
extend  this  line  of  36°  30'  westward  to  the  Pacific 
ocean.  And  wonderful  to  tell,  this  fact,  which 
nobody  denies,  or  cares  to  deny,  is  abundantly 
proved  by  sundry  industrious  gentlemen,  whose 
laborious  research  among  the  musty  Journals  of 
Congress,  have  shown  that  not  only  once,  but 
more  than  once,  this  proposition  was  made  and 
refused.  The  right  of  the  South  to  make  these 
proffers  is  undisputed  in  any  quarter,  and  why 
not  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  North  to  decline 
it  equally  indisputable?  Or  are  we  of  the  North 
to  be  told  that  we  must  take  everything  proffered 
by  our  dear  brethren  of  the  South,  as  the  un 
fledged  tenant  of  the  bird's  nest  opens  its  tiny 
mouth  and  swallows  all  that's  dropped  therein? 

The  assumption  then  that  these  refusals  to  es 
tablish  the  same  parallel  of  latitude  in  our  newly 
acquired  territories  as  the  boundary  between  free 
and  slave  labor,  worked  any  forfeiture  of  rights 
under  the  compromise  of  1820,  is  both  untrue  and 
insulting.  It  implies  that  the  representatives  of 
the  one  interest  had,  in  the  settlements  of  the  ques 
tions  growing  out  of  our  acquirement  of  territory 
from  Mexico,  rights  of  choice  superior  to  the  other, 
and  that  the  one  had  the  right  to  propose  a  basis  of 
settlement  which  the  other  had  not  the  right,  and 
was  not  "perfectly  free  "  to  accept  or  reject.  If, 
then,  this  undoubted  right  of  choice  was  vested  in 
the  North,  why  will  the  advocates  of  this  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  compromise  expose  themselves  by 
affirming  that  the  North  lost  thereby  what  was 
guaranteed  to  it  by  the  engagements  entered  into 
some  thirty-four  years  ago?  Both  parties,  it  may 
be  safely  said,  were  equally  free,  and  the  action  of 
either  or  both  in  Congress  at  a  subsequent  period, 
in  relation  to  another  tract  of  country,  and  upon  a 
question  modified  by  the  attending  circumstances, 
can  no  more  be  plead  in  palliation  or  excuse  for 
taking  away  the  prohibition  against  slavery  in 
those  Territories,  than  the  agtion  of  the  British  Par 
liament  upon  the  Turko-Russian  question.  And 
it  deserves  to  be  mentioned  in  this  connection,  that 
the  establishment  of  this  line  of  36°  30'  is  now 
claimed  by  the  slavery  propagandists  of  our  day 
as  very  objectionable  in  principle,  and  unfair  to 
that  very  "peculiar  institution"  in  its  practical 
effects.  If  so,  why  is  anybody  to  be  blamed  for 
not  extending  this  line,  and  thus  enlarging  the 
alleged  pernicious  influences  of  which  these  friends 
complain  ?  The  North  deserve  praise,  not  cen 
sure,  at  the  hands  of  those  gentlemen  for  this  act. 
And  yet  the  North  is  complained  of  for  this  very 
thing,  additional  evidence  of  man's  ingratitude  to 
man.  Who  after  this  will  venture  upon  a  kind, 
good-natured  act?  It  would  seem,  Mr.  Chairmarr, 
that  the  refusal  to  extend  the  Missouri  line  by  the 
North  lays  the  South  under  increased  obligations 
scrupulously  to  adhere  to  it  as  already  establish 
ed,  however  oppressive  it  may  bear  upon  their 
sectional  interest,  in  token  of  their  undying  grat 
itude  to  their  northern  brethren  for  preserving 


6 


them  from   an   addition   to   its  alleged  onerous 
terms. 

Still  another  plea  by  which  this  repeal  is  com 
mended  to  the  favor  of  the  people,  is,  that  the  repeal  I 
is  necessary  in  order  to  set  up  in  the  Territories,  i 
popular  sovereignty.     It  has  even  been  claimed,  i 
in  some  of  the  more  lofty  flights  to  which  oratory  j 
has  soared,  in  the  advocacy  of  this  bill,  that  it  | 
involves  the  same  principle  in  the  maintenance  of' 
which  our  revolutionary  fathers  converted  Boston 
harbor  into  a  mammoth  tea-pot,  and  enriched  the 
soil  of  many  a  battle-field  with  their  precious  blood.  ! 
Now,,  it  is  a  very  pleasant  day-dream  to  imagine  • 
one's  self  upholding — without  fatigue,  or  sacrifice, ! 
or  danger,  it  may  be — the  same  glorious  doctrines  ; 
which  impelled  the  men  of  76  to  peril  their  all 
for  liberty!     Nay,  more  than   this;  it  will  be  of 
great  and  inestimable  advantage  to  any  statesman  | 
to  be  thus  regarded.    His  political  future  is  bright 
and  alluring.     Dark  clouds  may  arise,  but  they 
cannot  obscure  the  radiant  and  mellow  sunshine  ;! 
which  falls  upon  his  upward  path  of  political  pre-  I 
ferment.     Other  men  may  sink — but  he  will  ever  i] 
be  upheld  by  the  strong  and  irrepressible  power 
of  the  popular  will. 

It  is  no  marvel  then  that  the  advocates  of  this  | 
repeal  of  freedom's  line,  especially  those  repre 
senting  a  northern  constituency,  should  be  quite  | 
solicitous  to  screen  their  conduct  by  holding  up 
this  popular  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty.  The 
only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  success  of  this  : 
beautiful   experiment,   is   the   circumstance — the 
trivial  and  unimportant  circumstance,  doubtless  : 
in  the  minds  of  those  gentlemen — that  it  is  quite 
apocryphal  whether  the  doctrine  is  really  in  the 
bill,  and  if  there,  it  is  in  such  homeopathic  propor 
tions  as  to  be  of  little  value. 

The  section  relied  upon  to  prove  the  presence  of 
this  doctrine  in  the  bill,  has  been  already  quoted, 
and  an  examination  of  it,  in  connection  with  the 
legislative  construction  by  the  Senate,  shows  that 
the  freedom  it  grants  is  partial  and  one-sided; 
freedom  to  let  in,  but  none  to  shut  out  slavery; 
and  even  this  dubious  boon  is  overwhelmned  in 
the  numberless  other  provisions  which  subject ! 
those  sovereigns  to  congressional  control.  If  the 
inhabitants  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  are  sover 
eigns  by  this  bill,  they  are  certainly  among  the 
most  dependent  sovereigns  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
A  new  and  corrected  edition  of  the  dictionary 
should  be  issued  immediately.  They  do  not  even  j 
set  up  their  government,  but  Congress  does  it  for  , 
them;  they  do  not  pay  the  expenses  of  their  gov 
ernment,  but  it  comes  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  very  well  to  talk  of  sover 
eignty  of  States,  but  sovereign  Territories  is  a 
misnomer. 

In  the   nature  of  things,  Congress   must  and 
does,  under  the  provision  of  this  bill,  as  it  always  j 
has  done  from  the  beginning  of  our  national  ex-  j 
istence,  prescribe  the  conditions  upon  which  set 
tlements  may  be  made  within   territorial  limits, 
and  exercise  a  supervisory  control  over  them  until,  | 
Jjy  consent  of  Congress,  territorial  dependence  is 
cast  off,  and  State  sovereignty  set  up  in  its  stead. 
It  is  in  vain  to  hope,  therefore,  that  the  mantle  of 
popular  sovereignty  will  cover  with  itsgraceful  folds 
the  deformities  of  this  bill,  or  shield  its  advocates 
from  the  fiery  indignation  which  it  justly  provokes. 
And  besides,  if  it  be  necessary  to  repeal  the  pro 
hibition  against  slavery  in  these  Territories  in  j 


order  to  install  popular  sovereignty  therein,  wh&t 
shall  be  said  of  the  bill  of  last  year,  which 
passed  this  House  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  without 
this  provision  of  repeal?  If  this  must  be  passed 
in  its  present  shape,  in  order  to  leave  those  people 
"  perfectly  free,"  how  ought  the  supporters  of  the 
former  bill — including  the  Senator  who  stands  in 
parental  relation  to  this  proposed  repeal — hang 
their  heads  in  shame  that  they  then  pressed  a  bifi 
which  ignored  this  principle?  Nay,  for  thirty- 
four  years  these  men  and  the  entire  body  of  the 
American  people  have  upheld  a  prohibition  which 
must  now  be  taken  away,  because,  forsooth,  it 
denies  popular  sovereignty;  is  anti-Democratic 
and  unconstitutional !  Is  this  most  pitiful  pre 
tense  true?  Has  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  who 
has  hitherto  advocated  and  repeatedly  endeavored 
to  extend  the  Missouri  line,  been  thus  far  anti- 
Democratic,  and  against  popular  sovereignty? 
Will  he  insist  upon  it?  Or  will  he  give  up  the 
sham  excuse  of  popular  sovereignty  ?  Which  al 
ternative  will  he  take?  How  deplorable  that  in 
this  land  of  bread,  there  should  l>e  those  who  turn 
away  from  it  to  feed  upon  their  own  unsubstantial 
words! 

It  is  affirmed,  with  great  pertinacity,  4hat  the 
non-slaveholding  States  consent  to,  nay,  proffer 
this  repeal  of  the  prohibition  against  slavery  in 
the  Territories  for  which  this  bill  provides  a  gov 
ernment.  This  assumption  would  be  entitled  to 
respect,  if  it  did  not  originate  with  those  who  have 
endeavored  to  forestall  the  sentiment  of  the  North 
upon  this  question,  and  who  have  derided  that 
sentiment  whenever  it  was  manifested  in  opposi 
tion  to  this  repeal.  What  could  the  people  of  the 
northern  States  have  done  that  they  have  not  done 
in  manifestation  of  their  universal  and  undying 
hostility  to  this  scheme?  The  press  has  sounded, 
loud  and  long,  the  note  of  alarm.  Public  meet 
ings  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
northern  States,  have  uttered  their  indignant  re 
solves  against  it.  State  Legislatures  have  added 
their  deliberate  expression  of  hostility.  The  rev 
erend  clergy,  shocked  at  the  stupendous  wicked 
ness  of  this  project,  have  made  their  voice  heard 
and  their  influence  to  be  felt  against  it.  In  popu 
lar  elections  which  have  been  held  since  this  repeal 
was  pending,  the  suspicion  that  a  candidate  was 
in  any  way  identified  with  it  has  been  as  fatal  to 
him  as  the  sirocco's  breath.  The  masses  of  the 
people,  who  have  been  met  in  their  various  pur 
suits  with  the  unexpected  and  astounding  intelli 
gence  that  the  guarantee  of  freedom,  made  more 
than  thirty  years  ago,  was  to  be  taken  away,  have 
united  in  sending  their  unnumbered  remonstrances 
against  the  uncalled  for  and  reprehensible  deed. 
The  author  and  abettors  of  this  plot  against  free 
dom  are  not  anxious  to  acquaint  themselves  with 
the  popular  sentiment  of  the  North  on  this  ques 
tion  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  line.  They 
apprehend — they  have  reason  to  apprehend — that, 
:  if  allowed  fully  to  represent  itself  upon  this  floor, 
it  would  unseat  the  representative  who  now 
proves  recreant  to  its  commands,  and  "  crush 
out,"  once  and  forever,  all  attempts  to  enlarge  the 
area  of  human  bondage. 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  main  purpose  in  asking  a 
few  moments  of  the  time  of  this  House  has  been 
to  disclaim,  for  those  who  sent  me  here,  any  con 
sent  to  this  meditated  outrage  upon  their  rights 
and  privileges  under  the  proviso  which  protects 


those  Territories  from  the  blight  of  slavery.  They 
do  not  proffer,  they  do  not  consent  to  its  repeal. 
For  them  I  insist  upon  the  unfulfilled  condition  of; 
the  Missouri  compromise.  In  their  name  I  de-  | 
mand  that  the  stipulation  to  freedom  shall  be  kept  j 
inviolate.  In  their  behalf  I  formally  and  dis-  | 
tinctly  reiterate  their  protest,  already  on  your  files, 
against  removing  the  landmark  of  freedom  which 
our  fathers  set  up.  Sir,  all  classes,  all  parties 
there  unite  in  this  thing.  Rarely,  if  ever,  has 
there  been  a  question  of  national  concern  on  which 
there  was  such  entire  unanimity.  Great  pains 
have  been  taken  to  represent  the  opposition  to  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  compromise  as  confined 
almost  entirely  to  the  Abolitionists.  It  is  time 
this  delusion  was  dispelled.  They  are  doubtless 
opposed  to  this  repeal,  and  for  good  reason,  but 
they  are  a  small  band  in  comparison  with  the 
gathering  hosts  arrayed  in  battle  array  against 
this  perfidious  act.  The  most  earnest  and  invet- 
ef  ate  in  their  indignant  denunciations  of  this  bill  are 
those  who  not  only  acquiesced  in  but  strenuously 
upheld  the  legislation  of  1850,  including  what 
a  leading  journal  of  South  Carolina  has  avowed 
to  be  a  "  barbarous"  law.  They  have  gone  to  the 
verge  of  concession  for  peace.  They  feel  them- 
pelves betrayed,  and  they,  as  one,  declare  that  since 
the  legislation  of  1850  is  made  the  unworthy  pre 
text  for  overturning  the  compromise  of  1820,  they 
feel  themselves  absolved  from  all  compromises 
on  slavery.  Nor  is  this  sentiment,  it  is  but  just 
to  add,  confined  to  those  who  have  ranked  as  po 


litical  opponents  of  the  National  Administration, 
under  whose  auspices  this  bill  of  abominations  ia 
to  be  piloted  through  this  House,  It  embraces  a 
large  majority  of  those  who,  within  their  respect 
ive  spheres  in  the  district  I  have  the  honor  to  rep 
resent,  contributed  to  bring  this  Administration 
into  power.  Those  men  protest  they  gave  their 
influence  and  their  suffrages  to  Franklin  Pierce  for 
no  such  purpose  as  this.  It  was  not  the  enter 
tainment  to  which  they  were  invited.  They  ad 
mired  his  inaugural  and  message,  and — credulous 
men — they  believed  in  his  pledge  of  peace.  They 
now  spurn  this  new  party  test,  upreared  on  his 
broken  promises  and  violated  party  faith.  Irepeat, 
sir — speaking  for  the  electors  of  the  .Thirty-first 
congressional  district  of  New  York — I  denounce 
and  protest  against  the  repeal  of  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  contained  in  this  bill.  I  warn  its  cham 
pions  that  the  tempting  fruit  they  grasp  shall  be 
as  ashes  to  their  taste.  If  they  desire,peace,  they 
will  have  cause  to  deplore  such  peace  as  it  will 
bring  them. 

In  conclusion,  sir,  I  respectfully  submit  that 
the  title  of  this  bill  is  defective.  It  does  not  con 
vey  the  remotest  idea  of  what  it  accomplishes.  It 
not  only  organizes  the  Territories  of  Nebraska 
and  Kansas,  but  it  digs  in  those  distant  solitudes 
a  deep  and  capacious  grave,  in  which  the  broken 
pledge  to  freedom  will  be  laid,  but  not  forever. 
Around  the  spot  good  faith  and  honor  shall  keep 
their  unceasing,  sorrowful  vigils,  and  be  the  first 
to  hail  its  certain ,  its  speedy  resurrection  morn . 


Printed  at  the  Congressional  Globe  Office. 


